this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
-26 points (24.0% liked)

Technology

76008 readers
4081 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Engywuck@lemm.ee 32 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I didn't t read the article (of course), but I hope flying cars aren't anywhere near to be available to consumers. Many drivers are barely able to drive correctly withouth killing themselves (and/or anybody else) on a 1D path drawn on a 2D surface. IMHO, giving anyone the possibility to "drive" in a 3D space is a recipe for disaster.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 years ago

The ones I've seen have usually been predicated on being fully autopilot. Which is why I doubt it'll take off, given how skiddish the FAA is about not having pilots.

[–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Every time someone mentions flying cars this is the only thought that matters to me.

"yes let's add a THIRD dimension for people to be idiots in"

There's no way you could get me into a flying car until they've been around for decades, and automated with a safety record better than commercial airlines.

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 2 years ago

Standing ovation

[–] Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 2 years ago

How about fast trains?

Please?

[–] Critical_Insight@feddit.uk 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Looks like a helicopter to me

[–] Lodra@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago

Looks more like a battle bots machine to me, but built at human scale. Seriously, those low blades are very low and positioned at the perimeter. Forget the risks of flying; This looks extremely dangerous at ground level.

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago

"Flying cars" are pretty much always shitty helicopters.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Looks more like people sized drones, and I doubt the FAA will like them.

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Not until they come up with a better solution for emergency landings than "pop out a parachute and fall uncontrolled on traffic and people below". Even normal helis can autorotate to the ground.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The EH216-S boasts a range of only 22 miles

Oh yes, flying cars are finally here.

[–] lemann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Even a really low end ebike can do better than that, and compared to the 300k price tag of this flying car, the cost of said ebike would literally be a rounding error.

Speaking of price tag, you could buy a REAL plane, a cessna 310, with a 1000 mile range (870 nautical) for less than the cost of this!

[–] isles@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But if I had an ebike, I'd have to share the roadway with plebeians.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

And in a city like Los Angeles, it is an honest debate as to whether a flying car is safer than biking.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago
[–] ZILtoid1991@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 2 years ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/6fcWOivJ6bs?si=LveofkfTpG7cvnIs

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] Binthinkin@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Just what we need, flying garbage.

[–] lettruthout@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

...and more noise.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 2 years ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The EHang is certainly quieter and greener, and may prove to be safer (not that the notoriously accident-prone Robinson sets a high bar), but we’re a long way from phasing out ordinary helicopters, let alone seeing cars get replaced with little drone copters.

Still, I’m happy to see the little guy flying around Guangzhou — and while EHang specifically has been the subject of some financial controversy, I’m excited to see rivals like Joby, Wisk Aero, and LIFT’s Hexa also making progress.

The aviation pioneers Juan de la Cierva and Harold Pitcairn developed an aircraft called the “autogyro” (also spelled “autogiro”).

Pitcairn received a reward from President Herbert Hoover for his work, and an autogyro landed on the south lawn of the White House to mark the occasion.

The problem, Hall writes, is that “cultural reaction and regulatory ossification have combined to dam up the normal flow of experimentation in high-power technology.” People have developed an “idiotic fear of energy” that keeps them from pursuing the future of our dreams.

Market bears betting against the company and other electric vertical takeoff/landing (eVTOL) firms argue that electric copters’ short ranges mean they can’t replace military or search-and-rescue helicopters, and that they will never be cost-competitive in the small market of urban transport helicopters: With heliports in New York charging usage fees in the range of $200 per flight, it’s never going to be cheaper to take a chopper than a cab to, say, LaGuardia Airport.


The original article contains 1,257 words, the summary contains 244 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!